Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Untangling Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 06:20:32 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com> Date: May 18, 2007 9:06:32 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, ip () v2 listbox comCc: Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu>, EEkid () aol com, Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Subject: Re: [IP] Untangling Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest
[For IP, if worthy] Can we try to entangle various different issues which have all been mixed up? I'll state them as I understand them: 1) The Don Imus firing had nothing to do with the FCC, as his particular racial slurs did NOT fall under FCC's indecency regulations (the FCC only has power over "sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive"). It was purely a private decision based on private protest, with no government aspect (someone, somewhere, might have cried "FCC", but that was a completely empty threat based on any reasonable construing of the FCC's reach). Some acts just stop being funny, you don't see many minstrel shows anymore.2) Sirius and XM, being satellite radio, are not subject to FCC "indecency".
3) If there's a suspicion that XM took action because they were worried that a merger with Sirius would be blocked because of retaliation, there's not much anyone can do about it - because unlike FCC indecency regulations which could in theory be repealed, or ruled unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the issue already postulates an action outside formal regulatory reasons. That is, whether or not the merger happens, both XM and Sirius aren't and won't be formally subject to FCC indecency rules. So if the point is that the governmentshouldn't punish them for backdoor reasons, that should go without saying.
4) But the evidence that there is a governmental aspect is extremely thin.
The article sources it vaguely to "industry observers", and one pundit, "It's hard to read anything into it other than that they're catering to federal officials," said William Kidd, a media analyst with Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. 5) But in fact, it's not hard to find other explanations at all, and a careful reading even of the article shows an offended *management* being a far more likely explanation: "XM issued a statement condemning the comments, and Cumia and Hughes apologized on the air Friday. On Monday's show, Hughes and Cumia complained about "dumb rules" and an "umbrella of morality and decency" that led Imus and some other hosts to get fired. XM officials suspended the pair Tuesday, saying the comments "put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter." This seems to fall under: When you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. That is, it seems they got suspended for a public fight with management over being told they'd crossed a line. Whether or not that's a principled free-speech stand or a contract violation, it seems first and foremost a private action because there's almost *no* *evidence* that fear of government action was involved (I think there really needs to be more than merely a conjectured possibility, otherwise anyone could claim it). 6) The FCC merger explanation just smells fishy to me. These people are *professional* *controversy-mongers*. It's literally what they do for a living. It all stinks of a fabricated attention-getting device:"HELP! HELP! WE'RE BEING REPRESSED! Big Bad government's *CENSORING* *US*!
All you free-speech supporters, starting jerking your knees in our direction, we are victims of the evil FCC, save the world by telling the company how they have to fight-the-power by keeping us employed". Yeah, right. I'd want to see a whole lot more proof before I mustered any outrage over what has to be presumed to be media manipulation. 7) There's a complicated issue of free-speech theory in the following, but in sum, I believe it also our right to exercise free-speech to protest to comedy-club owners, advertisers, and the like, that racist remarks *are* offensive, and more relevantly, there is an economic downside to pandering to racists. Yes, yes, it all gets tangled up in the paradox of being intolerant of intolerance, books can be written on this, but it's also a paradox not to be able to speak out against hatred. 8) So while it's important to be vigilant against "government power to muzzle free speech", it's also important not to take any claim of free-speech martyrdom at face value, especially when the claimant has an incentive to exploit anti-censorship activists for their own enrichment. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re: Untangling Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 19)